Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[Sardukhar]

Oh, I totally agree and I think they will have to do something like this for reflexes above 10.

Just as long as they don't make a big deal of it or mention "turn-based". People R Dumb. Even VATS has it's detractors and it does change gameplay.

I'd like to see this option for people with Reflex Boosting cyberware, absolutely.

But really, I want options that make a 5 vs 1 fight doable IF you are smart about it. Traps, environment, allies, tactical movement...all that should make the difference. So a smart Rockerboy can still win, even if he doesn't have Combat Sense, Kerenzikov +2 or the CoD reflexes of a 19 yr old.

That would, of course depend on players being clever. Dragonbird would have to spot the fire extinguisher beside her fleeing target, nail it with a grenade or rifle round and then watch the guy go flying..a giant yellow SHOOT THIS highlight would ruin the sense of accomplishment.

 

[dragonbird]

Did you miss the last line?

Duh.
It was the LAST line. tl;dr.
Important points should be in the first paragraph.

I think that a lot of this could be achieved with K&M just be allowing the hotkeys to be assigned to something other than "which weapon?", especially if they also do something sensible about inventory management and don't allow you to have five weapons. I'm not sure how that works with controllers, but the principle sitll applies. So, as Maelcom said, your standard choices may include "take hostage".

But a lot of it comes down to them just designing the world so that it isn't just bodies that can be shot at. Shooting a car, a window, should have an effect.

 

[Maelcom404]

You should start the game with nothing more than the basic GTA abillity and then unlock another with your skills or cybernetics, that would be a good deal and add variety, I think.

Or yes, basic things like hostage or things like this, but the more you'll boost your reflexes, etc... the most efficient you'll be.

 

[Sardukhar]

especially if they also do something sensible about inventory management t.

Ha ha.

Hah hahahah.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhHAHAHAhahahahAHAHAhAHAHAHAhAHahhahAHAhahahahAHAh. Ha. Ah.

Oh, CDPR and inventories.

Well, we could have faith.

I liked the idea about presetting hotkeys to combos and the like. I'd love to macro up some commonly-used moves. Like, say, draw-weapon-kneel.

Or, dive-into-cover-activate-cyber-deck.

Kick-enemy-throw-enemy-fastdraw-sidearm.


Nothing too crazy, but, you know, just stuff I don't need to perform 80 million times.

 

[Suhiira]

In Cyberpunk almost anything can be shot/stabbed/beaten and eventually you'll defeat it. You don't have the simple and easy to implement mechanic of "resistances" like Divinity (i.e. fire elementals are immune to fire) to add complexity to combat. Also you don't have mages, quivers full of various types of arrows, or weapons with different damage bonuses, you don't really have multiple damage types to add that variety/flavor to combat.
All this restricts how "complex" combat can be in Cyberpunk.
The only real tools they have is NPC combat AI, and let's face it computer controlled opposition will NEVER be as smart as a player, and armor/weaponry. I don't know about you but when I play a game where every NPC is better armed/armored/skilled then I am (after the inevitable under-equipped start of the game) and frequently is more difficult to injure (higher hit points or whatever), and/or always outnumbers you 2, 3, 5, whatever to 1; after a while I begin to see it as damn annoying and poor game design rather then a challenge. I know some folks prefer this sort of game play, but I ain't one of them.

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, first you have the environment. That alone is host to lots of creative options like traps and NPCs and traffic, etc.

Second you do have Mages - you have netrunners and Techies, with a host of abilities to mess with people. hacking, hacking local devices, hacking comms, gadgets, home made gadgets, etc.

Third, you absolutely have resistances and elements in 2020. You have fire, you have blast, you have poison, you have electricity, you have momentum/wind, you have blind and you have stun.

You have all those things and appropriate ways to make them happen with weapons or the environment , in Cyberpunk 2020. Flamers, tasters, pulse weapons, dartguns filled with drugs, nearby fuel tanks, water, EMP pulse, etc.


So there are lots of tools to modify combat and non-combat gameplay. I think we can all agree that getting away from higher-HP/armour NPCs is a good thing, thus the challenge of complexity.

As for smarter AI, smarter than a player, that depends on the player as much as the AI. A lot of it has to do with reload-until-you-win and learn the AI. That's not being a better player, that's just save-scumming. I've been stomped by smart or smart-ish bots in PvE in games like Watch Dogs, where i've stomped other players fairly easily.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I obviously voted for "As complex as possible - something like turn-based mode."

Now, it's unlikely that I'd be so lucky as to get a turnbased Cyberpunk cRPG, but there is the "something like" there, which could mean anything from tactical pause to a sort of phase based mode where you queu up your moves and have them execute the same time on the scree with the enemy.

But as complex as possible and slower paced is where I'd go with this in any case. Being slow doesn't need to mean watching the paint dry or that it's not tense (if life is cheap in the combat situation and you can't gain an advantage by being the leetzor FPS/TPS master from outer space (in reality your mom's basement), then... well, it shouldn't matter if the pacing isn't exactly Flash Gordon); but it does provide better view on the battleground and more time to ponder your tactical options based on the environment and your chosen skills at any given moment which I think should be at the heart of the gameplay.

And that's just talking about combat. The non-combat stuff if where complexity really gets to shine through the myriad of different possibilities for interesting design for interactivity, reactivity, cause and effect, and choice and consequence.

How does the chosen role affect your in-game choices (through itself and how it, possibly, limits and allows for differing skillbuilds -- eg. being able to rise certain skills higher than other roles, but then again some skills might be left a bit under the bar, even if not completely unobtainable)? What kind of interactivity does the world offer for the skills and roles and what kind of reactivity do they hold. Little things that may seem random and insignificant may ripple throuhgout the game to bite or reward you much later on, or those little things might provide access to something much larger which then provides a whole new layer of reactivity depending on where you approach it. A seemingly insignificant sounding skill like Library Search might pack quite a punch in terms of payoff and reactivity if consistently developed, for example.

But yeah, complex, slow paced and tactical.

 

[Harthwain]

Complex (deep) doesn't mean it can't be simple. I am all for complex (deep, not just complicated as hard to understand) and simple gameplay. I doubt turns would work very well with action game. F3 had VATS only because F2 and F1 had it and people would claim "it ain't F without VATS". I am not against active pause, slow time or turns, but only when it's well incorporated into the gameplay. That's the key. In terms of giving players as many options in game as possible, I am all for it. I did get the same impression that Divinity Original Sin allows magic users to do quite a lot. I can't say the same for melee-oriented users though. I don't know the universe of CP77 well enough to think what kind of interactions are possible, but I doubt we'll get something as good as magic or the Force so I wouldn't expect too much.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Fallout 3 shouldn't be brought up as an example of anything but a warning sign on how not to do things unless you want your game to be a shallow and pointless busywork hiking sim in a grapohically pumped up world (which people admittedly like... for some reason).

The VATS there was a lazy attempt at emulating the called shot mechanic from the original games, but it worked nothing alike. It wasn't a calculated tactical move with a tradeoff that might cost you your life in the worst case scenario (or save it against almost impossible odds in the best), but it was a gimmicky "I-win" panic button to compensate for the clumsiness and inefficiency of the overall combat design that was really blown all over the place and at times felt like Bethesda didn't even try.

Still, though, all that said, I gotta hand it to them that they didn't make it a slowmo bullet time feature (which they originally intended, iirc).... *shiver*


Anyways, I understand "complex" in this context as "multifaceted" rather than "unclear". Divinity Original Sin is a good example of that. It is complex (and multifaceted) and it might be hard to master with all the possible options, but it is still fairly easy to use and learn.

 

[Harthwain]

Fallout 3 shouldn't be brought up as an example of anything but a warning sign on how not to do things unless you want your game to be a shallow and pointless busywork hiking sim in a grapohically pumped up world (which people admittedly like... for some reason).

Our opinions here are not so diverse. My point is that VATS in F3 simply didn't fit the overall concept of Bethesda games. I am not certain that any turn-based concept will fit CP77 and I say this as fan of turn-based games in general (as they put more emphasis on tactics and strategy in games). I don't want another F3.

Anyways, I understand "complex" in this context as "multifaceted" rather than "unclear". Divinity Original Sin is a good example of that. It is complex (and multifaceted) and it might be hard to master with all the possible options, but it is still fairly easy to use and learn.

I'll quote:

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs "fun"

It does suggest that depth, complexity and fun are all exclusive (and different things), which simply is not true, given certain context. Nothing forbids the game developers from making a complex (deep) game that's also simple and fun. I can't stress this enough. I must also add that I don't get what complexity has to do with turns...

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Our opinions here are not so diverse. My point is that VATS in F3 simply didn't fit the overall concept of Bethesda games.

I meant to say, that there would've been better ways of doing it. Not so much that the general idea of such a feature is just extra baggage.

I am not certain that any turn-based concept will fit CP77

Why not? It's all about adjusting the basis of combat to support such an element; I don't see how such an idea would be inherently unfitting, especially seeing how the PnP mechanics SUPPOSEDLY are held in high value and are SUPPOSEDLY being emulated as closely as possible.

It does suggest that depth, complexity and fun are all exclusive (and different things), which simply is not true, given certain context. Nothing forbids the game developers from making a complex (deep) game that's also simple and fun. I can't stress this enough. I must also add that I don't get what complexity has to do with turns...

Oh, I agree with that.

The "what complexity has to do with turns" thing is, I'd suspect, about the requirement for higher level of understanding the mechanics you use than it is for a conventional action game where you just shoot around. That is, with a supposedly complex RPG as the context; and not the concept a turn itself without any bakcground.

 

[227]

The thing I love the most about systems like the one in Original Sin (and many other turn-based games) is how much you can abuse it with a little know-how. There's something immensely rewarding about giving a character 121% or more fire resistance and then camping out in lava where enemies can't reach you, or lugging around a bunch of oil barrels so that you can ka-plode 20 people at once for massive XP. In Fallout, I hoard Jet and Psycho and all that stuff and use it all before going up against the final boss, giving me something like 3-5 sniper rifle shots per turn and a 100% chance of a headshot no matter where I am. In Arcanum, I like to evaporate doors with the Disintegrate spell rather than dealing with silly things like lockpicks.

I don't think that strategic depth with a ton of resistances and all of that stuff is really necessary, personally, so much as something that rewards creativity and thinking outside the box like that. Another good example would be Witcher 2 and how you can kill most of the bosses by laying down 30-40 snares in one spot before the fight and luring them to it. Having creative stuff like that be possible is more important than having a million different stats and resistances to make the game complex, in my opinion, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the entire graphics budget if it meant having that kind of leeway when coming up with your own individual approach to combat.

You should start the game with nothing more than the basic GTA abillity and then unlock another with your skills or cybernetics, that would be a good deal and add variety, I think.

That'd be a interesting system, especially if there were multiple tiers of interactive items that could be interacted with. The question would then become whether it'd be better to have all of that cool hypothetical stuff available to everyone if they already know that it's there, or lock it (or portions of it) out until the player has invested in the requisite skills.

 

[Harthwain]

Why not? It's all about adjusting the basis of combat to support such an element; I don't see how such an idea would be inherently unfitting, especially seeing how the PnP mechanics SUPPOSEDLY are held in high value and are SUPPOSEDLY being emulated as closely as possible.

That's not how I read what they're doing. They are transforming passive abilities of turn-based elements of PnP into actions of some sort. Take Baldur's Gate for example. It might be based on turn-based gameplay, but it ain't playing like one. Furthermore in BG you had the whole team where giving player access to active pause was sensible. In TPP or FPP where you control a single character will that be useful? Well, maybe if they're going for something truly unique (like what Transistor did)... I have nothing against it, as long as it'll fit well together. I simply am not sure they'll manage to go away from heavily action-based gameplay, which doesn't have to be entirely bad thing. It's about execution.

I don't think that strategic depth with a ton of resistances and all of that stuff is really necessary, personally, so much as something that rewards creativity and thinking outside the box like that. Another good example would be Witcher 2 and how you can kill most of the bosses by laying down 30-40 snares in one spot before the fight and luring them to it. Having creative stuff like that be possible is more important than having a million different stats and resistances to make the game complex, in my opinion, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the entire graphics budget if it meant having that kind of leeway when coming up with your own individual approach to combat.

I like creativity and thinking outside of the box, but your TW2 example sounds too gamey (or exploitable) for my taste. In my opinion players shouldn't be able to abuse certain "tactics" to a point where it breaks the intended gameplay. 30-40 snares killing the boss is something like that. Still, I don't mind if people abuse that sort of thing in singleplayer.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

That's not how I read what they're doing.

But that's what I read them implying (to some degree at leat). And that's what I think they should be doing. Regardless of if the core gameplay is "actiony", they should compensate the "action-game" feel with strong implementation of the rules, and extra features (that might be largely optional) that help with making the game flow and feel like an RPG it tries to (and is advertised to) be because that can not be achieved only through the setting and branching narrative, you need the gameplay to deliver too.

 

[Maelcom404]

Mike Pondsmith said himself "A perfect Cyberpunk game would be GTA3 with hardware", so it gives you an idea of how much "action" oriented the gameplay will be, I doubt we'll have much turn based thing, probably as we said first some kind of option depending on your cybernetics and stats giving you access to different possibilities in different situation, as for the VATS, yes it was crappy in fallout and over-powered, but in Cyberpunk where the lethality is realistic, I wouldn't be against "pausing" the game and being able to look around, just like in reality.

If I'm in the middle of a gun fight and I'd want to take someone hostage or trying to disarm a guy pointing his gun on my head, I'll not think for 5mn about it, It's supposed to be quick, It would just be totaly not enjoyable to have to lose 15seconds pressing 4buttons just to grab someone and pulling your gun on his head, here that would require CoD 16yo reflexes and be a pain in the ass to master.
As for turn-based combat... yes and no, since there will be multiplayer it seems, I don't know how that would play out
And it would just kill the "dread" and the immersive side of being covered behind a metal table, earing the bullets screaming around you.

Sure, the "cost" of it would be, like in GTA, that you'll be vulnerable by the time you try to get him (like when you try to get a car, the animation runs but your character can get damages, unless your reflexes are boosted then you would be quicker and more accurate), that would be the right mix between action, tactics and "fun" gameplay, because the fights have to be filled with action, sure it's one thing to have turn based in a medieval setting, but here we talk about crackhead from a soon future shooting at each other with guns firing 2000 rounds per minutes, they need to give us the most ability possible, having different tier of ability and execution depending on your level, all of this keeping the "power and badasness" of the action, they even said that shooting and all wouldn't depend on your skills, and if CDPR said that, you can figure it'll look more like GTA/Mass Effect than a turn based Rpg when it comes to action.

And you know, if even the NPC can do those things, in the end it'll not be an action shooter where you're the badass firing at complete noobs, here they'll suposedly react like real person, trying to disarm you, ect... That would make the fight really unpredictable IMO, and totaly in the spirit of Cyberpunk, because the original pnp was supposed to be played fast, you know "what are you doing?" ..."well".... "Ok! you stay in cover, next player, what are you doing?". That's how it played out, you're not supposed to take 10minutes to plan you super badass move, it has to stay instinctive, sometime you'll do crazy stuff, sometime you'll look dumb and just take a bullet in your brain as your friends will laugh at you.
Just tell you that in Cyberpunk 2020 one entire turn takes 10sec, and YOUR turn, only 3.
So it should be somewhat the same in 2077, being fast and agressive.

Well, that's how I see it after all, it's not because you're "in charge" that it becomes a shooter, on the oposite, the more variable you add, the more depht you have to counter what you have in front of you, and I don't know if there are any Fighter player here, but in a fighting game, you're not supposed to have overly-badass reflexes (except for combo or special), you're supposed to THINK fast, react and try to figure out what to do with the ability you've got, on the oposite, the more "agressive button masher you are" the less blank you leave to react to what your oponent is doing.
I want to have to think, but not like an elderly, it needs to be quick and lethal with a lot of side-options to make the difference and add lots of variation, so every fight will never play the same, even if you re-load your save, you'll never be able to use two time the same tactics since you'll maybe be disarmed by a lucky guy and having to do something else or I don't know what, but I find this way more interesting, "powerfull" and mostly "CINEMATIC" as Cyberpunk 2020 was intended than boring turn based gun fight, that's not Age of Empire 2077.
Nothing against turn based thought, but I don't see it fitting the style and vibe of Cyberpunk 2077.

IMO that's the difference between a shooter and a RPG with "action" mecanics, in a shooter you just shoot at what you seen, you don't need to think that much, but in an action RPG, you'll need to think quick, training your brain to find the best option possible in the quickest time possible because your enemies arent "flesh dolls with a target", they're as capable than you, mostly if CDPR can make an AI that react to what you do and act in consequence of it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Mike Pondsmith said himself "A perfect Cyberpunk game would be GTA3 with hardware", so it gives you an idea of how much "action" oriented the gameplay will be,
....
they even said that shooting and all wouldn't depend on your skills, and if CDPR said that, you can figure it'll look more like GTA/Mass Effect...

I guess that's it then.

 

[Garrison72]

With CDPR's games, the narrative and gameplay are of equal importance to me. I like how in the Witcher, the narrative is what drives the gameplay opportunities. I don't expect them to do things drastically different in '77. As to the poll, I chose quite complex. What matters most to me is stat driven weapons, effects and enemies, and a breadth of options in completing missions. This means we need to pick the best tech for the job and carefully consider how we approach the enemy, ie; from what route, stealth or force, time of day, hacking, baiting, luring mooks away from their posts, etc.

Despite what Pondsmith says, I still feel GTA is a poor example for CDPR as the focus in that game is mucking around and causing havoc. It is most definitely not a tactical, realistic experience.

 

[Maelcom404]

Despite what Pondsmith says, I still feel GTA is a poor example for CDPR as the focus in that game is mucking around and causing havoc. It is most definitely not a tactical, realistic experience.

I think he said that about the overall idea of how the game would look, no just play, in the Cyberpunk setting you couldn't put half the mess you put in GTA without having the psychosquad on your ass with the best weapon around, you'd not last more than a few minutes.

But having a really wide city, without barreer, a somewhat realistic takes on criminality, gangs, etc... being able to take your car and ride whenever you want.
You're bored? just ride around and see what happens, you're not even supposed to follow the main story line to have fun with this game.

Well, that's what they said when they first anounced the game and their basic idea for the game, if they keep the lethality and the basic rules, you'll have a game way deadlier than GTA, so you'll never really want to start a shootout in the street (except with a crappy character you'll pimp 'till he turns into a cyberpsycho, just a "for the fun" savegame), where the shootouts and fight are quick and brutal, so I think from what they said, and what we know from the pnp that the "GTA" side will just be the packaging, there will be way more stuff (RPG in fact) inside it.
That's not because it's a third person with shoot ability and a sandbox world that it's a GTA clone or aren't a RPG.
It all depend on how they'll work their in-game mecanics from this, and i'm pretty faithfull they'll be able to make a good game out of this.

 

[Sardukhar]

Despite what Pondsmith says, I still feel GTA is a poor example for CDPR as the focus in that game is mucking around and causing havoc. It is most definitely not a tactical, realistic experience.

Agree. Mike was talking, I think, the quality if life that GTA exemplified - dangerous, desperate Street.

The gameplay itself, while fun, is in no way like Cyberpunk and also, I feel, is a leeeetle boring after a few hours.

 

[Garrison72]

I'm down with that. I do want there to be a certain level of contained craziness when you hit the streets. Random encounters, dangerous traffic, spontaneous gun battles and the like. When it comes to the main missions I expect a more structured and deliberate approach. I still wonder if there will be driving involved and how that could play into missions. Sleeping Dogs had some wickedly fun driving shootouts. I'd love to see that in '77.